President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel spent so much of their meetings on Monday discussing the crisis in Ukraine that just before it was time to leave they entered a rapid-fire round of diplomacy.

Among the topics raised was the future of Afghanistan after more than a decade of war, unrest in the Middle East, and the June gathering of leaders from the world’s top seven economies in Germany, which was the initial reason for Ms. Merkel’s White House visit. Read More »

Whatever you think about sending arms to Ukraine, the debate has clearly had a positive effect on diplomacy. Throughout January, Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Petro Poroshenko, and Vladimir Putin canceled one meeting after another. Once Washington began to take seriously the prospect of military assistance, however, the leaders of Germany, France, Ukraine, and Russia suddenly discovered that they had reasons to talk. They may even have reached a deal. If so, American ideas will deserve a share of the credit.

So let’s assume a new cease-fire agreement is reached—what then? Some will argue that because diplomacy has prevailed, arming Ukraine is unnecessary, even counterproductive. I’d argue the opposite. If we want the deal to stick, Ukraine needs military help. Read More »

In his confirmation hearing Wednesday, Ash Carter, the administration’s nominee for defense secretary, said that he is “very much inclined” to send arms to Ukraine. One hopes that this is not another piece of the administration’s one-step-forward, one-step-backward rhetorical pattern regarding the Ukrainian government’s months-old requests for lethal military assistance from the United States.

Consider: When asked during his confirmation hearing in November about providing such assistance to Ukraine, Deputy Secretary of State-nominee Tony Blinken responded: “That’s something we should be looking at.” Read More »

The lack of progress in reversing the Russian incursion and restoring peace to Ukraine has prompted some calls to accommodate Moscow. But Russia has not complied with commitments it has already made, most notably the September memorandum from Minsk. This should give pause to any Western policymaker contemplating new concessions. Read More »

From the rise of Islamic State, to Russia’s land grab in eastern Ukraine, to the threat posed by the Ebola epidemic in Africa, 2014 was a year of foreign-policy wake-up calls. These and other situations prompted the United States to react with a more forceful and focused approach to national security than it had in 2013.

Ukraine elects a much-needed new parliament on Sunday, and I’ve been worried about a “Zhirinovsky shock.” Maybe you remember what happened in the Russian parliamentary elections of 1993? Economic distress, political disorder, and countrywide psychological disorientation produced a big vote for nationalist loonies, led by Vladimir Zhirinovsky’s facetiously named Liberal Democrats.

Today, Ukraine has the same crazy-making ingredients, maybe worse: war and national dismemberment, economic free-fall, anti-establishment anger, fear of abandonment by the West. With things this bad, one expects half-unhinged candidates and parties to get the upper hand. Read More »

The knives are out. Two columns this week–in the Washington Post and on ForeignPolicy.com, both by respected mainstream commentators–suggest that President Barack Obama needs new national security advisers. The Sunday talk shows are bound to pick up the theme. Leon Panetta’s new book gives them plenty to work with. So does an excellent Reuters story in which mid-level types across the administration trash its Syria policy.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) on Thursday delivered what amounted to closing arguments ahead of the November elections, laying out a list of Republican priorities including a tax overhaul, changes to the U.S. legal system and reduced federal regulation.

In remarks made at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Boehner also highlighted a number of politically-divisive issues that were put on hold in Congress ahead of the November elections. Read More »

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.